Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras

Key Judgment

Legal Relevance

Keywords: Duty to Investigate | Burden of Proof | Evidence | Judicial Protection | Juridical Personality | Systemic Practice | State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy

Themes: Characteristics of the Crime | Justice and Truth

The Court established for the first time that enforced disappearances are a complex, multiple and continuous violation of the ACHR, constituting a radical breach of multiple provisions of the Convention and showing an abandonment of the values underpinning human dignity. The Court stated that domestic remedies must be "adequate", suitable to address an infringement of a legal right – and "effective" – meaning capable of producing the result for which it was designed. In terms of evidence, it stated that the standard of proof allows for reliance on circumstantial and presumptive evidence, the former being particularly important in cases of enforced disappearances, which are characterised by an attempt to suppress all information about it. Regarding the burden of proof, the Court held that if the complainant could prove that there had been an official systematic practice of enforced disappearances in the state, and that the disappearance of the victim could be linked to said practice, the burden shifts to the state to disprove the allegation. As for the obligation to investigate, the Court held that this may not be a mere formality, but must be taken on by the state as its own legal duty and which must not depend on the initiative of the victim, their family or upon their offer of proof.